Obama’s gun control steps useful, but Congress needs to act

[LuckyTheDog]

My latest Detroit News blog post.

Before I discuss President Obama’s latest gun control measures, I need to get some things out of the way.Some people will always believe efforts to curb illegal gun sales are part of a stealth attempt to destroy freedom. Many of them also believe that armed insurrection might, someday soon, be the best way to “preserve liberty.”

This column is not aimed at them. I will, instead, address the adults in the room.

For those who missed it, the administration Thursday enacted some modest new gun-control measures. According to Josh Lederman of the Associated Press, they consist of “curbing the import of military surplus weapons and proposing to close a little-known loophole that lets felons and others circumvent background checks by registering guns to corporations.”

Those were small steps. But they move us in the right direction in a way that should be applauded, even by gun-rights advocates. Few people want more military-style weapons on the streets. Allowing felons to skirt the law by registering guns to corporations is an obviously bad idea.

MORE HERE: http://blogs.detroitnews.com/politics/2013/08/30/obamas-gun-control-steps-useful-congress-needs-act/

[BumRushDaShow]

1. K&R

[X_Digger]

2. These EOs were useless foot-shuffling.

We're talking about old M1 carbines and M1 garands that the US sold or gave to countries like South Korea.

The EO just blocks reimportation of these old historic rifles.

It doesn't stop Springfield Armory from making brand new M1 Garands, it doesn't stop anyone from going to a local gun store and buying one.

These are old US rifles that collectors purchase because of their history. They're not used in crime.

And the NFA trust thing? Starting prices are around $5,000 + filing fees for a trust + 6 months of BATFE approval. Somehow I doubt many felons are willing to jump through those hoops to have their name on file with the BATFE.

[Duckhunter935]

3. Too bad

now M1 rifle prices will skyrocket. That is a vintage weapon I always wanted. I am sure this will cut down on crime they are used in . I am sure this also affects Mosin and other bolt action military rifles. This is just so sad. Nothing like banning 100 year old rifles in the name of safety.

I can live with the trust portion.

[X_Digger]

4. It's shooting himself in the foot politically at the very least. n/t

[LuckyTheDog]

6. The import ban

The import ban refers to military firearms provided to "allies, either as direct commercial sales or through the foreign military sales or military assistance programs."

That does not sound like "vintage weapons" to me.

[petronius]

9. What it 'sounds like' is what makes it theater - these typically

are vintage, militarily-obsolete rifles that are functionally identical to common hunting rifles (and that's what they look like, too, it's not about the scary black plastic rifles). But by talking then up as "military" and "military-style" the casual reader is left to assume that we're talking about something entirely different - the modern battlefield As Seen On TV^TM. That's misleading, and once you're past the misconception it's clear that this policy has no relevance to crime and/or safety...

[LuckyTheDog]

23. Do we really need thousands more semi-auto rifles to come in?

Some of them are old, but they are still very lethal.

[petronius]

25. "Do we need them?" isn't the question, the question ought to be "why not?"

Leaving guns for a moment, I will submit that any law or policy restricting any item or behavior ought to be based in a compelling societal goal. In other words, we should never ban anything unless there's a good reason for the ban - and a mere 'nobody really needs this action or item' isn't a good reason.

In the case of these particular rifles, there is no compelling societal reason to keep them out: they are not more dangerous or lethal than any other semi-automatic rifle (despite their 'military' background*), equivalent and identical rifles are widely available, and these are disproportionately under-represented in crime and safety issues. Public safety and crime prevention certainly are compelling societal interests, but the re-import ban doesn't serve those goals in any way.

Guns are common and legitimate items to own, and there's no real reason to object to this particular category of them. People want them (e.g. for target shooting and historical purposes), there's no reason to prevent them, and so the re-import ban is pure theatre (even if the act is "we have too many guns, lets block this tiny set of them to make a statement&quot . It has nothing to do with safety or crime, and is therefore bad policy...


* Elsewhere in the thread I've argued that the nonspecific use of "military" and "military style" is misleading in this context, as in others.

[LuckyTheDog]

27. So, basically, what you are saying is...

... that an older gun is less likely to be used in crimes. That's not the same as saying we can import tens of thousands of them per year and that all of them will go to and remain in safe hands.

I have read that there are dealers who have acquired huge stockpiles of these weapons abroad and are looking to sell them here in big quantities. Sorry, but I don't believe that they are all going to collectors. It sounds to me like somebody found a cheap source of very lethal weapons that might be mighty attractive at gun shows and other places where backgrounds are not being checked.

[X_Digger]

32. Import is managed by the SoS & ATF

And is sold through a government-chartered program.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_Marksmanship_Program

[Duckhunter935]

34. My 1953 Mosin

is like the weapons that would be banned for import, surplus military. Great bolt action military rifle. 1903 Springfield bolt actions would seem to be covered. Another great bolt action military rifle. Hoe many of these are use in crimes?

This is a bull**** feelgood measure that is worthless except for the price of the US made rifles that will go way up. I guess they can just start making brand new versions to meet the market. Brand new 1903 or M1 would be nice.

[petronius]

35. No, that's not quite what I'm saying

What I am mainly saying, in a nutshell, is that these rifles are no different than the far vaster number of equal and equivalent rifles that are already here. And I don't claim that they are never misused, but it is certain that they are misused at a far lower rate than firearms in general. So, there's absolutely no compelling societal reason to prohibit their re-import. It's bad policy, feel-good policy, done purely for symbolism. Barring these rifles will mainly affect collectors and target shooters - the 'good' gun owners - with no effect whatsoever on crime and safety.

And forgive me, but your second paragraph sounds a bit CT. There's just no reason to think that the re-import of these classic rifles is a scheme to flood the market with cheap crime guns. They're big, they're heavy, and just not that attractive in a criminal sense (I assume so, anyway, I'm not all that experienced in criminal behavior )...

[LuckyTheDog]

40. If they are cheap enough... and if S. Korea exporters had their way they would be...

... then, to lots of people looking for a cheap semi-auto rifles for nefarious purposes, those would be very attractive. Are they heavy? Sure. But at the right price, they'd have buyers. And, no, not all of them (or even most of them) would be collectors -- not if hundreds of thousands were brought in over just a few years.

[petronius]

46. May I ask you to consider, in all seriousness - have you really thought

about this, or are you simply grasping for reasons to keep thinking this policy is a good idea (i.e., anything other than purely ineffective posturing)?

Keeping guns out of the hands of people who would use them nefariously is a worthy goal, but preventing the re-import of this subset of firearms - that are equivalent to a wide-range of already available firearms, that are in a category that is unattractive for and relatively rarely used for crime, in quantities that are dwarfed by the already available market - can not have any reasonable relation to that goal...


On Edit: This thread could apply equally well to this re-import policy. And to attempt an analogy, the idea that this re-import ban will help curb crime is like thinking that banning blue Honda hatchbacks would help curb vehicular air pollution.

[LuckyTheDog]

47. I don't think you are being realistic...

... if you think a sudden influx of tens of thousands of particularly inexpensive semi-automatic rifles would not be of interest to gangs. They are not going to care if they are kind of heavy or kind of old. Cheap, powerful weapons always have a market in the criminal world.

[petronius]

49. The point you're missing, is why would this particular set of rifles become

attractive to criminals, when the far larger set of equivalent rifles, already available, is not of interest? (Rifles in general, as you know, are not big players in the crime scene.) You seem to be hypothesizing some huge flood of bargain-basement rifles, overwhelming the legitimate demand, and somehow being diverted into an underworld that thus far has shown no interest in such a firearm (and again, if gangs did want these, they could buying them right now). There's simply no basis for that hypothesis...

On edit: Remember also that the CMP, which sells this category of rifles, is overwhelmed with a months-long backlog. The legitimate demand is there; importers wouldn't be interested otherwise. There's no nefarious intent to flood 'the streets' with big old rifles...

[petronius]

5. The re-import ban is pure theater, and will have no effect at all on

crime and public safety. The rifles in question are no different from many models that can be purchased today, are still sold directly to civilians through the CMP, are rarely if ever used in crime, and are largely of interest to collectors with a historical bent as well as target shooters. No useful purpose whatsoever is served by banning their re-importation.

I would suggest that "military" and "military-style" are among the most misused and misleading buzzwords in the gun control discussion. It seems that gun control advocates want to conjure up an image of a modern battlefield - with machine guns, heavy weapons, RPGs, and all that carnage - but the rifles in question have nothing to do with that anymore. If a rifle is functionally equivalent to to a bunch of other typical civilian rifles, what is the relevance of whether or not it's military surplus?

[Mr_Teg]

7. Substitute the word "Scary" and it makes more sense...

[Paladin]

8. You Gun Enthusiasts are the the ones who are horny for military styling.

When was the last time somebody expressed enthusiasm for a Winchester Model 70 bolt action rifle, down in Gun Control/RKBA (your favorite group, according to your profile)? It's nothing but non-stop slavering over AK-47's, AR-15's and assorted semi-auto pistols, with an occasional Barrett .50 thrown in the mix. Talk about conjuring up the image of a modern battlefield---you're the ones with that sick fantasy, 24/7......

[Lizzie Poppet]

10. Thanks for the amateur telepsychoanalysis.

As usual, it was worth every penny paid...

Oh, and you do realize that this inane ban has nothing whatsoever to do with rifles that look like AKs or ARs, right?

[Paladin]

11. I am familiar with the firearms involved, thank you very much.

I stand by my comments---no reason not to, considering they're confirmed every day by the content of Gun Control/RKBA.

And if this is such an "inane ban," why are you people squealing about it so much? It's not as if you're going to support much of anything worthwhile in the way of effective gun control measures---again, the daily content of Gun Control/RKBA substantiates this.

[Lizzie Poppet]

12. I should think it would be obvious why we're complaining: it's useless grandstanding.

If you think politicians espousing and enacting useless nonsense in order to appease the dimmer lights among their constituency is a good thing, knock yourself out. Personally, I'd prefer they spend their time doing, oh, I dunno...something constructive?

Oh, and doubling down on fuckwittery like uninformed sweeping generalizations about peoples' motivations and mental states doesn't make it any more valid. But again...knock yourself out. It at least has the virtue of being unintentional comedy.

[Paladin]

14. Yeah, right.

Constructive action on the gun problem in this country is the very last thing you and your gun activist cohorts desire. You're not fooling anybody.

[Lizzie Poppet]

16. FFS, lay off the insipid telepsychoanalysis.

I've advocated FOR multiple reasonable, potentially effective (as opposed to this window dressing bullshit) gun control measures time and time again on these boards. Perhaps you should step away from the keyboard and stop posting about what "you and your gun activist cohorts desire" until you actually have the slightest fucking clue what you're posting about. New experiences can be rewarding...

[Paladin]

19. Monumentally unconvincing. (nt)

[Lizzie Poppet]

22. If you were capable of being convinced by reason (or anything else)...

...you wouldn't post bullshit amateur psychoanalysis and (not so) thinly-veiled accusations of dishonesty.

Ah, well, have at it...I'm done. "Teach a pig to sing" and all that...

[Duckhunter935]

36. Is a 1903 springfield

covered by this?

M16's are already banned from import under NFA.

[petronius]

13. The popularity of AR and AK style rifles has nothing to do with this topic,

since they aren't the rifles addressed by this re-import ban. But the same question applies to them: if a rifle is functionally equivalent to any other rifle, what difference does it make if it's military 'style' or military surplus? And if people like the look, feel, and modifiable-nature of those platforms, there's nothing sick about it.

But I think you missed my point: gun control advocates and pundits like to toss around the words "military" and "military style" and so on without any clear meaning, solely to conjure up war-zone imagery that has nothing whatsoever to do with the actual rifles in question. It's intended to frighten and mislead (to trigger that "ooh, icky, who needs that"? response) rather than to inform...

[Paladin]

15. Your side caused the usage of "military" and military style"

Those terms were adopted after you people had major meltdowns over the use of the "assault rifle" moniker. "Military style" is a perfectly accurate description of the firearms we're discussing, and war-zone imagery is what animates and excites your side of the debate, not mine. Once again, daily proof of the foregoing is available in DU's Gun Control & RKBA group.

[petronius]

17. When the OP says "more military-style weapons on the streets", why do you

think that phrasing was selected? What impression do you think it was intended to convey? And based on the answer to those, do you honestly think it's "perfectly accurate" in correctly discussing the subjects of this re-import ban?

You know as well as I do what the purpose of the phrasing is, and it's not to be informative. Rather, the purpose is to confuse people into believing that these pre-Vietnam-era semi-automatic rifles are in fact the select-fire infantry rifles seen in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. Which, we know, they are not. (But I'm actually not sure the OP knows they are not - looking elsewhere in the thread it seems he thinks these are modern infantry rifles. Which just goes to show that the spin and deceptive framing has worked.)

You also should know perfectly well that it's irrelevant to this discussion whether or not people like or desire military style or even 'badass looking' guns, because that taste - no matter how much you abhor it or how icky it makes you feel - is irrelevant to policy.

But the question still remains: if a rifle is functionally identical to many typical hunting rifles, and even looks like them, why does it matter that they are "military surplus"? In what possible way does banning the re-import of such rifles affect crime or safety, when exactly equivalent firearms are available from private dealers and directly from the government itself? The answer, obviously, is that it serves no purpose other than theatre, and the emphasis on 'military' is intended solely to influence policy opinions through fear and misdirection...

[Paladin]

18. Let's dispense with the "functionally identical" bullshit, shall we?

As soon as psychos start turning up at schools, shopping malls and office buildings with wooden-stocked, low magazine capacity Remington 750 semi-auto hunting rifles, you'll have a point to make. But golly gee, that doesn't seem to be the sort of firearms the nutcases are going for these days, does it? It's those plastic-stocked, 20-round magazine, <saw it on the latest video games and all those Rambo movies so it's gotta be cool> numbers they're utilizing, now isn't it? See, I've owned and used guns since around 1959 or thereabouts, and I've fired Garands before (the clips make that neat little "p-ting" ejection noise, just like you hear on the first 20 minutes of "Private Ryan&quot , so your little "functionally identical" tap dance doesn't cut it with me. Talk to me again when you're equal to the task, OK?

[petronius]

20. Nothing in the OP or the thread is about plastic anything or anything

from a Rambo movie, is it? And the taste preferences of "psychos" and "nutcases" are totally irrelevant to describing the functionality, or equivalencies thereof, of any rifles on the planet.

I notice that you've persistently neglected to address the topic of the thread, or to answer what I've actually said. To recap: I assert that 1) the "military" and "military-style" phrasing is used misleadingly by gun control advocates, in an attempt to muddy the water, and 2) the re-import ban is pure theatre which has no bearing on safety or crime. Discussion of those assertions is available above - if you feel like discussing the actual topic I'll be here.

But I'm well aware that you're far more interested in trying to be provocative and insulting than in communicating; I'm not impressed, but if the behavior gives you some sort of joy then have at it...

[X_Digger]

21. You seem to not realize what this "reimportation ban" actually affects.

This only applies to rifles sold or lent to allies that are otherwise able to be reimported and sold to civilians.

What are those guns, you ask? They must be semi-automatic, so no M-16's (there are no new full auto's being sold to civilians- the registry is closed.) They must have been sold or lent to allies. We don't sell or lend AR-15's to allies, nor AK-47's.

What does that leave?

Guns like these- M1 Garands and M1 Carbines.



What you seem to have missed is that there are functionally identical rifles, like this one

http://www.fulton-armory.com/M1-Garand.aspx

.. being made new, today, and are not affected by this importation ban.

It seems someone else is not up to the task.

[derby378]

24. There's a SLATE article that appears to echo those sentiments

http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2013/08/30/executive_action_gun_control_banning_the_reimportation_of_obsolete_military.html

[HolyMoley]

42. Because it was NEVER about curbing firearms related crimes or public safety.

(Portions cut and pasted from an earlier response of mine).

This is born out of spite, sour grapes, anger and frustration with the NRA and Congress.

I'd wager that the braintrusts that came up with this scheme, fully realize that none of this will have any impact or effect on firearms related crime or violence. It's only purpose is to send a 'fuck you' message to the opposition: 'if I can't have it my way, well then, lets see how you like these apples'.

Those in the administration responsible for this ineffective nonsense believe they sent a message to the NRA, Congress, gun owners, and at the same time placating the Bloombergs, Bradys and Newtown hand wringers.

Maybe what they don't realize is that they stirred up the hornets nest even more.

Whatever chance, opportunity, hope they had to pass "reasonable" gun control legislation now or in the near future, has been irreversibly sunk by their own hands.

There was a time I was in favor of Universal Background Checks and submission of mental health records to the NIC's... not any more.

They want to play their games, well so can we.

Damn the torpedoes... full speed ahead.

[LuckyTheDog]

29. Those do not look very harmless.

They look like cheaply available lethal weapons.

[X_Digger]

30. That's right, let's legislate based on looks *rolls eyes*

They're $1,800 each, due to their historical value.

"cheaply", lol.

Whereas a brand new copy? $1,000'ish

http://www.fulton-armory.com/M1-Garand.aspx

Those cheaper, brand new versions? Aren't affected by this EO.

[LuckyTheDog]

48. Import tens of thousands all at once and they'll be cheap

And that is what Obama's ban will prevent. It will prevent certain importers from carrying out their plans to import containers full of those guns - which would drop the price and far exceed the demand by collectors. The collector market is not likely to absorb the roughly 80,000 of those just one importer wants to bring in.

My guess, though, is that those rifles would find other kinds of buyers at prices significantly below the price of new guns, if dealers were able to dump them on the market as planned.

[X_Digger]

50. They're all imported through the CMP, they always have been.

The CMP has been the single source for these historic rifles for 80+ years.

Derp.

[spin]

37. All firearms can be lethal. (n/t)

[ileus]

31. Bad part is the repro's don't have any historical value.

Look at all those beauties....thousands of collectors are being denied the ability to own a piece of American history.

Something tells me a 9.5 pound 44" long internal magazine fed 30-06 isn't very popular among the gun thugs....but maybe I'm wrong....LOL

[X_Digger]

41. I'd love to have a collector grade winchester

I've got an uncle who has the rifle he used in WW II (he was an armorer at one point, so it's been kept in immaculate condition).

I'm right there with you thinking that these behemoths aren't on anyone's 'crime gun' list.

[Jenoch]

28. Since psychos are not showing up

shooting up places with wooden stock, low capacity rifles, why are you against the reimportation of Garands?

[Jenoch]

26. The reason the Winchester Model 70

is not discussed in Gun Control/RKBA is because they are not (for now) the subject of gun control and talked about being banned. If we talked about how much we like the gun (I would love to own a pre-64 model) the thread would be shut down for being off topic and not following the SOP.

How is it that you could not figure this out for yourself.

[spin]

33. I post in the gungeon. Both action rifles such as the Winchester Model 70 are excellent firearms.

Such weapons are an excellent choice for hunting and target shooting. I would love to own one but I am not a hunter and I enjoy target shooting handguns far more than rifles. However a couple of years ago I bought a 6.5 X.55 mm Swedish Mauser made in the 1940s. This firearm was in excellent shape and the price I paid for it was a fraction of the price of a used Model 70.

Swedish Mauser

***snip***

Both the m/1896 and m/1938 rifles are highly sought after by military rifle shooters and hunters. The 6.5×55mm is an ideal all-round hunting rifle cartridge, as it has a flat trajectory, low recoil, and high accuracy. Many rifles in the USA, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, the United Kingdom and South Africa have been sporterized to make deer (or similar game) hunting rifles, and many firearms manufacturers, including SAKO, Ruger and Winchester, produce new hunting rifles chambered in this cartridge.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_Mauser

It is true that you don't see much talk praising bolt action rifle in the gungeon. Such firearms are not weapons targeted by gun control advocates. Perhaps if the gun control advocates ever succeed in the effort greatly restrict or even to successfully ban and confiscate all "black rifles" you then will target bolt action rifles and claim that because they are "sniper weapons" they are a public danger.

Your side claims that the only use for a semi-automatic rifle such as the AR-15 which cosmetically resembles firearms used by our military forces is to kill humans. This is obviously false as they are legally used in many states for hunting and also used for completive shooting in national competitions. Such weapons can also be a highly effective home defense weapon in a rural environment. Gun rights advocates often point this out in their posts and also mention that rifles such as the AR-15 are easier to accessorize and modify to suit the individual user without requiring an expense trip to a good gunsmith than an older bolt action rifle.

I'm sorry that the facts dispute the propaganda that the gun control side of the debate loves to post. Still AR-15 style rifles are very popular in our nation not because the owners buy them to kill others but because they are accurate, reliable rifles that can be used for hunting, target shooting and sometimes self defense. The fact that they are easy to customize is a significant advantage.

[WeekendWarrior]

38. The problem is in the second half of your subject line.

Congress act? That isn't what Congress does.

[sarisataka]

39. I'm not sure how many trusts were used

by felons to obtain firearms. It seems it would leave far too much of a paper trail for a gun to be used in a crime. Yet this is an actual loophole and I have no problem closing it.

Now banning re-importation of 60+ year old military weapons, of which modern copies are still made, makes less sense.

[X_Digger]

43. Possession by a felon would have still been illegal.

So a felon could have technically owned one, but never been able to touch it.

[sarisataka]

45. I recall an interview with

G. Gordon Liddy some years ago. A question was posed about firearms, him being a convicted felon. IIRC his response was "I do not own any firearms. Mrs. Liddy however owns 17 including a full automatic Uzi."

I would have thought there would have been a trustee established who had passed a background check. Apparently not.

[ileus]

44. 3 maybe 0 at the most...